Rush Loving's article in the March 2009 Trains provides a lot of history I was unaware of and the impacts that many of us wondered about. He raised a number of issues.
Good Logistics and Ecology The recent stories of full trains are somewhat exaggerated. While ridership rose sharply with the price of gas, many trains still run substantially below capacity. The promise of more effective and efficient intercity rail passenger service has been thwarted by the low ridership on many trains dragging down overall performance.
Low utilization is not simply a function of demand for an over-extended service taking into account alternative travel times and population pairs. Schedule convenience and fares impact utilization. The Sunset, for example, goes through the major Arizona market late at night. I'm convinced fares are responsible for low utilization for some routes while recognizing the need for adequate fare revenue.
Only two of the fourteen Hiawathas with five cars, #330 & #339, are filled to near-capacity with commuters working in Chicago. The monthly pass works out to $7.78/trip @ 46 trips/mo. A 10-ride, 60-day limit ticket costs $165. Most of the other trains are virtually empty with a $22 1-way fare between Chicago and Milwaukee. By comparison, downtown Chicago parking is over $30/day; and gas and tolls are another $15/day at 30 mpg and $2/gal. For non-downtown destinations, parking is mostly free while CTA and Metra fares add to the cost. It seems to me that there would be some room for congestion pricing of the monthly ticket and a reduction in the 1-way fare, especially on off-peak trains.
The Lincoln Service between Chicago and Saint Louis has pretty good loadings with more deeply discounted fares than the Hiawathas. The 1-way fare to Springfield, IL is only $18, less than to Milwaukee while almost 100 miles farther; and a 10-ride is only $170. The 1-way fare for #301 to St Louis is $32 and only $23 for #303, #305 & #307 despite being almost 200 miles farther than to Milwaukee. By comparison, gas would cost about $12 one way to Springfield and about $19 to St Louis. At $4/gal the train was actually cheaper.
Highway Trust Fund Extending funding to Amtrak faces two obstacles regardless of the government embracing the concept of an integrated national transportation and logistic system: motorists, particularly truckers, objecting to funds going anywhere beside roads, and public antipathy toward higher gas taxes. These have been and continue to be toxic political issues. Changing the name hasn't softened the opposition.
USRA-Style Reorganization Can medling be avoided without reducing accountability and responsiveness?
Dedicated Passenger Tracks While segregated trackage for freight and passenger may work in certain cases, this is no panacea. Would utilization justify the investment in separate facilities? Would the operations be less fluid? Separate passenger tracks certainly is an option for west of Porter, IN on the Chicago - Michigan Corridors that deserves evaluation; but separate tracks east of Porter would be ludicrous with the low levels of traffic.
Maybe BNSF's Matt Rose proposed separate dedicated freight and passenger facilities in principal; but would it work between Chicago and Aurora, Chicago and Milwaukee, or Los Angeles and San Diego? Installation of positive train control is a priority for passenger routes; so one must wonder about the motivation to espouse separate tracks. It seems Loving proposes that states and regions would share costs of separate facilities with the Amtrak and not the host railroad whose right-of-way is being used.
The idea that parallel passenger tracks would allow faster trains may be strictly true; but the difference in speed would be marginal with an increase of a couple inches of curve superelevation and certainly insufficient for high speed service.
High Speed Service There seem to be few opportunities where this might be feasible. High speed service between Chicago and Milwaukee would have very little impact and is impractical with existing rights-of-way. High speed services from Chicago to the Twin Cities and Saint Louis may not generate sufficient traffic. A route from Chicago into Ohio seems to offer the best Midwest prospect.
"The Lincoln Service between Chicago and Saint Louis has pretty good loadings with more deeply discounted fares than the Hiawathas. The 1-way fare to Springfield, IL is only $18, less than to Milwaukee while almost 100 miles farther; and a 10-ride is only $170. The 1-way fare for #301 to St Louis is $32 and only $23 for #303, #305 & #307 despite being almost 200 miles farther than to Milwaukee. By comparison, gas would cost about $12 one way to Springfield and about $19 to St Louis. At $4/gal the train was actually cheaper."
A pretty good loading requires definition. In FY 2008 the average load percentage on the Lincoln service was 45.5 per cent. Undoubtedly, it was probably higher from train to train and for segments closer to Chicago. Having ridden this line numerous times, I have noted that the load is pretty light south of Springfield.
According to Amtrak, the average fare for travel on February 15th between Chicago and St. Louis is $50.33. The $23 fare only applies to the early morning departure.
I didn't have actual numbers handy; but have ridden the Lincoln Service a few times when the Legislature was in session. You have a 45.5% average load figure that works out to roughly 90 passengers. I never was on a train with fewer passengers; and nearly every seat was taken north of Bloomington-Normal on one trip back with 90-100 passengers boarding at Springfield when I took #304. I noticed too that few passengers were on board south of Springfield.
Out-of-pocket, gas and tolls, was used because that is the decision point for many travelers not on per diem. Fully allocated costs also represent sunk investment in purchase and insurance whether one drives or not. Most wouldn't take into account the oil change and tires that would be 600 miles closer to need changing with driving to Saint Louis.
I was looking at the Monday, February 2 fares on line where #301 was more expensive. Still the fare to Saint Louis is cheaper than to Milwaukee, $0.177/mi compared to $0.256/mi, by 31% even at $50.33.
Another consideration for me and a few others is that the cost of driving was beyond what I could afford. The lower train fares made the trips doable.
With respect to HarveyK400's post, I think one of the worst things that could happen to intercity passenger service in this country is the development of high speed rail. There isn't unlimited public funding available for passenger rail. High speed lines are hugely capital intensive and will result in the available capital being spent on a handful of high speed routes instead of a larger network of "fast enough" regional routes that will serve more regions and more people. And, like Harvey, I question whether upgrading many corridors to "high speed" will really have a significant payoff in terms of increased patronage over a "fast enough" operation, particularly if the high speed operation comes at the cost of a broader regional network. Finally, on many corridors, you can actually get a better payoff in end to end timings by improving terminal facilities and operations rather than increasing top operating speeds.
I agree with much of what has been posted above/
Some limited capital spending toward high speed makes sense in areas where the increased speed can be had with the least expenditure. New catenary south of NYC in the corridor is overdue. 150 mph top speed between DC and Baltimore would stop any consideration of monorail. 150 mph could be acheived Chi - Champaign-Urbama/
Ther was a short blurg on our TV News last night that said beginning in March California would begin offering the first 10 billion in bonds for building HSR in California. I asked myself who will buy them and then realised that the bonds should go very fast and that much of them will probably go to those with an interest in HSR. Companies such as Alstom, Bombardier, the companies that will build the catenary and companies that build rail and concrete ties. Not to mention the Construction Companies that have been struggling along looking for any kind of work in this economy. I don't think selling the bonds in this economy will be that difficult.
California cities are facing a disaster when it comes to the numbers of cities some very major that are on the verge of bankruptcy. One city close to where I live will spend 90% of there annual budget just on Police and Fire and retirement plans. That doesn't leave much for everything else. With the drop in real estate values none of the cities were prepared for what is happening. New construction in our area is at a total standstill and business properties built last year are still sitting half empty.
Al - in - Stockton
Washington - Baltimore may take some curve reduction to acheive stretches of 10 miles or more as well as new catenary for only intermittent 150 mph running that might shave a few minutes off the schedule.
Chicago - Champaign-Urbana - Carbondale may have a right-of-way that would need relatively few curve easements. The real cost is in eliminating all public and private grade crossings for 150 mph serice. Far fewer trains than on the NEC would not justify this cost. Extending the morning train to Memphis, adding an early afternoon train to Memphis, and weekend specials from Champaign-Urbana and Carbondale for university students may be the limit of service for this route. The best that can be hoped for is 110 mph with PTC and restoration of capacity and a faster route out of Union Station.
The powers-that-be want the connection at Grand Crossing to reach Union Station. First, this does not save an appreciable amount of time over the current route and would be bettered with a new connection from the Air Line directly into Union Station. Second, the current route affords direct access opportunities for McCormick Place, the Univ of Chicago Hospitals and Museum of Science & Industry at 57th Street, and the hoped-for 2016 Olympic Village.
Furthermore, the Union Station - McCormick Place segment and improvement costs could be shared with Metra. This provides regional connections from Electric District and South Shore trains to O'Hare Airport and western and northern suburban destinations, particularly for work trips. Costs may be in the tens of millions; but the Air Line is more cost-effective than the billions it will take for an undeground link across the Loop and it can be implemented quickly.
High speed, 220 mph trains between Chicago, Indianapolis, and Cincinnati were urged in another site consistent with previously identified potential US corridors. I really wonder if travel in this corridor warrants the cost of construction, even if potential Evansville, Bloomington, and Louisville branches are added in.
150-mph may be acheiveable intermittantly where the cost of grade separation may be more justifiable between Lowell and Indianapolis with additional services to Evansville, Bloomington, and Louisville. Otherwise, 110 mph may be a more practical goal. Tilting trains, such as the Talgo 250, would be essential for these routes where curve easement and relocation would be prohibitively expensive for the levels of traffic.
Now a few trains might be extended to Nashville, Lexington, Knoxville, and perhaps Chattanooga and fill a few more seats. Similarly, overlapping Atlanta - Knoxville - Cincinnati and Atlanta - Nashville - Louisville trains may be feasible and share infrastructure improvements. Again, tilting trains would improve speeds and make the services more competitive with driving.
An interesting facet is that similar schedule demands would be present for each route, even if the numbers of riders for each route is not the same. Some branches may not generate as many viable trains as others; but this would not affect peak demand. The problems arise from whether trains would couple together between Indianapolis and Chicago or be fleeted separately.
Combined trains would not consume as much track and Union Station capacity at Chicago and save on engine crew; but unreliable service would affect all passengers. The lost time for coupling and uncoupling at Indianapolis that would detract from the potential passenger attraction is mooted by the the fact that all trains operating separately cannot arrive or depart at the optimal times.
Coupling sections may pose a need for an accommodating train design. More than the efficiency of a self-propelled railcar for short consists, the problem of train and platform length may bear more heavily in defining the best solution.
Fleeting trains incurs an added cost for extended passing tracks, really sections of a second main track. This really chews up capacity for any freight operations.
With regards to fixing Amtrack:
Perhaps the Federal Government, and the citizens/taxpayers/voters need to look at Amtrack not from the railroad industry perspective, or current Amtrack rider perspective, but from the perspective of the people who do not already ride Amtrack (aka... never thought of taking the train).
I asked Amtrack back during the summer of 2008 [when prices at the pump were high] if Amtrack was planning to run nonstop trains from New York City and Orlando for the upcomming winter season. I also asked if Amtrack could predict the fare, and travel time. Amtrack responded that the idea of a non stop train NYC-ORL was "not in consideration". This is half the problem of passenger railway transportation in America! Amtrack either can't, or won't, offer the services that people not used to train travel want! This is where the future of Amtrack and all forms of railway travel in America lies. Amtrack has to market its services to the generations of Americans who never needed (or thought of using) railroad travel. Amtrack has to develope and implement train services the never existed before.
Anyone who has ever worked in railroad transportation understands what Amtrack can't do because; (1)Amtrack has to pay for trackage rights, and this costs a lot of taxpayer money, of which Amtrack does not have a blank check, (2) Amtrack is bound by union collective bargining aggreements. Perhaps these same reasons explain what Amtrack won't do.
Here's the news flash, folks: Amtrack is supported by the American citizen/taxpayer/voter. Amtrack will have to change what services it offers to the public, and when these services are offered. And, if Amtrack refuses to offer services that are in great demand, such as non stop service between NYC & ORL or CHI & ORL (during the hight of the season), then the government needs to take money away from Amtrack and give the money to a railroad that will! There are a lot of travelers, and businesses out there who have to change what, when, and how they use transportation. We all know that the days of cheap fuel at the pump are going, going, gone! I also think it is a big mistake for the railroad industry (aka, the railroad companies and railroad unions) to think that they do not have to change with the times, even though over the road and air travel transportation companies (and their customers) have had no choice but to change with the times.
With regards to the railroad industry in general, America's citizens/taxpayers/voters are used to an interstate highway system, which is owned by the government, and open to all. Perhaps we citizens/taxpayers/voters should think of demanding an interstate railway system, that is owned by the government, and open to all railroads, so that we finally have better, faster and safer railway transportation in America than anywhere else in the world. By the way, an interstate railway system is not nationalization! Nationalization means the government owns and controls all railroads. An interstate railway system means the government owns the tracks, and all private (for profit) or public (tax funded transit systems) railway companies may use the tracks.
Without the distraction of a discussion of the relative financial viability of "non-stop" New York - Orlando and Chicago - Orlando trains and a comparison with other long-distance routes, let's just deal with the realities of insufficient equipment and budget that thwart implementation of service opportunities. Amtrak is constrained by both equipment availability, budget, and commitment to the existing service.
Amtrack is owned by the American citizen/taxpayer/voter. Amtrack will get the funding it needs to provide new services when the American citizen/taxpayer/voter gives Amtrack the money. However:(1) Americans need to see that Amtrack can offer these new services, such as nonstop train service between the large metro areas in the north, and vacation areas in the south, before Amtrack gets the money. (2) Amtrack needs to think and act more like a government agency, not a railroad. Amtrack needs to provide the services of transportation that people and companies in America want, otherwise Amtrack (especially in today's tough financial market) will dry up and blow away.
With regards to the mention of seasonal out of work on-board employees, there are a lot of out of work people right now. What is so special about Amtrack on-board employees? These Amtrack workers are union, and the union will take care of them, which is something a lot of American workers don't have.
Amtrack needs to recognize that President Obama wants to make use of alternative energy, which means electricity. Can anyone remember the last time they saw a tractor trailer that ran on electricity? How about an airplane? Trains have been using electricity for at least 75 years.
American citizens/taxpayers/voters should be talking to Congress in Washington about Amtrack. With all the other bailouts and areas where the government is stepping in to correct problems, maybe Amtrack needs a bailout, and maybe Amtrack needs to be restructured.
I want to make sure I understand what you're saying:
1. There is an untapped market of passengers who would ride a ~24 hour non-stop train from the Northeast to Central Florida, but if the train made a dozen stops or so in VA and the Carolinas, and the trip too ~26 hours, they'd all fly or drive instead.
2. The unions will renegotiate the existing contracts for all crafts to allow Amtrak to hire seasonal workers and the union will pay them in the off season (presumably with greatly increased union dues) and the rank and file will vote "yes" to this.
3. Amtrak needs to be more like the IRS, OSHA or EPA because government agencies understand customer demands and requirements better than a corporation that has to at least look at a profit and loss statement occasionally.
4. Amtrak needs to put a "c" in it's name.
We do these things, and Amtrak is good to go?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
In an attempt to clear any misunderstanding:
1. There may be a passenger market for trains from the Northeast to Central Florida, but if The National Passenger Railroad Corporation (AMTRAK) continues with its current operations,(refuses to offer new / different services) this market will never be realized. In addition, this train will have to be much faster than 24 hours non stop NYC to ORL. Last, if these train services are not offered, its not that people will drive or fly, people will not go to Florida! And no, I do not own stock on Disney. But it is worth repeating that Amtrak has to attract people who have never taken the train before. Many people will not consider 24 or more hours acceptable.
2. The auto industry unions are renegotiating their craft contracts, due to the problems in the auto industry, and having to accept a government bailout. Amrtak has been operating under a government bailout since Amtrak was born. If the taxpayers put the spot light on Amtrak, funding could be cut (especially in the current financial mess) and the unions could be out of work all together.
3.If Amtrak is such a good corporation that understands customer demands, and takes a look at profit and loss statements occasionally, Amtrak would be making money hand over fist. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not bad mouthing Amtrak. I understand Amtrak has to work with both hands tied behind the back, when dealing with the airline industry, and the OTR industry. Which is probibly the main point I should be making. There is no passenger railway industry in America. Cheap fuel at the pump kept this from happening. And the days of cheap fuel at the pump are going, going, gone.
4.My Bad! I did not spell Amtrak right! How many demerits?
5.Changes in how America uses transportation are comming. If you were used to flying, you will need to change. If you were used to driving, you will need to change. If you were used to trains operating the way they "have always operated", you will need to change. It is possible that Amtrak cannot make the changes needed to proceed into the future,and that Amtrak will fail. It is also possible the Federal Government may need to take steps to develope a passenger railway industry in America.
1. I'll agree that there are markets Amtrak needs to tap, but the basic problem is company is set up as a political football and consequently, the company, and it's employees have little motive to be anything but caretakers of the status quo. The solution is not to become more like a gob't agency, but to build profit motive into the company's day to day and strategic actions. However, there is little room on many existing routes to do much more than tinker around the edges - without spending gobs of money. Getting from NY to Central Florida in less than 24 hours, with or without stops, would require gobs of money for an additional, quasi-high speed track, for example.
2. If the taxpayers haven't put the spotlight on Amtrak's labor agreements in over 40 years, including some really bad times in the the late 70s, why would they now? The last couple Amtrak presidents got bounced, in part, over wanting streamlined work rules, and that was under Republican mgt, which is generally thought to be anti-union. Don't hold your breath...
3. Amtrak is only marginally more fuel efficient than driving or flying. If you want to improve fuel efficiency of passenger transport, the best return on investment is in commuter and urban transit.
There is $8Bin Fed funding coming to invest in rail passenger routes. I hope not too much is wasted by feeding pigs at the trough.
P.A. Talbot; Oltmannd: Discussion on the 24 hr NYP - ORL route. The time is quite douable. If you add a NE direct NYP - Wash 3:30, WASH Servicing Dwell :30 , VRE schedule to Lorton :40, Auto train Lorton Sanford - 17:30 and :30min Winter Park - Orlando you get 22:40 NYP - Orlando. That probably compares with ACL's Florida special favorably and does not require more speed. The Special stops that occurred in RIC, SAV, Jax are eliminated. A servicing and crew change is already occurring in Florence so that has been taken into account. Following a NE direct schedule allows for quick integration to the schedule however the additional equipment layover at NYP's Sunnyside yard could be a problem.
Now the bad news; Equipment, Equipment, Equipment, Equipment. It will be at least 5 years before enough equipment is available. Also 6 hr additional time to MIA is needed so the equipment maintenance is provided for and to drop passengers on down the Florida coast. To provide the service 4 or 5 train sets will be required. Twice weekly service would require 2 train sets (tight in case of any winter storm delays which will happen). 5 train sets of 16 cars = 80 cars + 10 additional locomotives. No way in the short term. We need to push for the equipment but will have to be patient for it to arrive if it does
Didn't know Autotrain was quite that speedy! (shoulda looked it up!) I knew that ACL was shooting for 24 hrs NY to Miami with some spurts of 100 mph running. The NEC is faster now than then, but I think CSX's traffic density on the route would preclude any more service without more track.
Oltmannd: I appologize to you because I slip punched you on the times. If you check the present schedule you will find that the Meteor times NYP - Orlando 21:40 (via Florence) and the Star (via Raleigh, Columbia) at 23:40 +. Actually you will find the Meteor times with all its stops are about the same as the Auto Train. The schedule of AT is padded because of the ACL Richmond - Pembroke congestion. AT seems to be running ahead of schedule right now (maybe because of traffic downurn).
The only thing that will fix Amtrak is huge infusions of money with total disregard to the taxpayers who must eventually pay the bill.
I have a tech question for the forum:
Does anybody remember a 1/2 page article regarding a DOD project to build a fuel cell locomotive? I remember a half page devoted to this article, and most of it was a picture, showing a EMD carbody. I think the article mentioned the locomotive/fuel cell developed 1 KW, about 1,400 hp. Any one remember this article?
What do all of you think of fuel cell locomotives? Do they have a chance in American railroading? Safe? Reliable?
P.A.Talbot I have a tech question for the forum: Does anybody remember a 1/2 page article regarding a DOD project to build a fuel cell locomotive? I remember a half page devoted to this article, and most of it was a picture, showing a EMD carbody. I think the article mentioned the locomotive/fuel cell developed 1 KW, about 1,400 hp. Any one remember this article? What do all of you think of fuel cell locomotives? Do they have a chance in American railroading? Safe? Reliable?
I would recommend you repost this as a question in either the LOCOMOTIVES or GENERAL DISCUSSION forums as it is off topic for this thread.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.